Hoang v The Queen - [2000] FCA 496

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hoang v The Queen [2000] FCA 496
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - urgent application appealing against a decision of a single judge of the ACT Supreme Court not to forbid publication of certain evidence under s 83 of the Evidence Act 1971 (ACT) - power of a single judge of the Federal Court to entertain such an application.
Evidence Act 1971 (ACT), s 83, s 83(1)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s 23, s 25(2)(a), s 25(2)(b), s 50
Federal Court Rules, O 46 r 6(1), O 52 r 17
Clarke v Director of Public Prosecutions (unreported, Finn J, 29 September 1998) referred
Hempel v Moore (1987) 13 FCR 480 referred
R v Lennon (1985) 38 SASR 356 referred
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 referred
Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431 referred
NHAN VAN HOANG v THE QUEEN
A 25 of 2000
FINN J
7 APRIL 2000
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
A 25 OF 2000
On appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court of the ACT

BETWEEN:

NHAN VAN HOANG
APPLICANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 APRIL 2000

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Publication of evidence given by the applicant, Nhan Van Hoang, and by Detective Constable Jamieson before Miles CJ on 6 April 2000 be forbidden.

2.Inspection in the Registry of the application for leave to appeal, and the draft notice of appeal if appended thereto, be prohibited.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 25 OF 2000

On appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court of the ACT

BETWEEN:

NHAN VAN HOANG
APPLICANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

7 APRIL 2000

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter has come on as a matter of urgency. The applicant, Nhan Van Hoang, pleaded guilty on 9 February 2000, to a charge alleging he possessed a trafficable quantity of heroin. He was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Yesterday, 6 April 2000, application was made to adjourn the sentencing proceeding. In the course of that hearing, application was made to Miles CJ to prohibit the publication of evidence given on the adjournment application under s 83(1) of the Evidence Act 1971 (ACT). The Chief Justice declined to make such an order and it is from that decision that the applicant applies to this court.
The matter first came on before me yesterday afternoon. I stood it over until today for further hearing. At the time I expressed concern as to the power, if any, I had as a judge of this court to make the order that was now being sought from this court to forbid the publication of the evidence in question. Notwithstanding that an appeal process has been instituted and the power the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hoang v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hoang v The Queen [2000] FCA 496
Case: [2000] FCA 496
Decision Date: 7 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hoang v The Queen, the applicant, Nhan Van Hoang, sought various orders related to the suppression of evidence and the publication of certain documents. The dispute was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the orders sought by Hoang were justified in terms of preventing unfair prejudice to him in the event of a retrial.

The court considered whether the evidence given by the applicant and the police officer, Detective Constable Jamieson, was of such a sensitive nature that its publication could lead to unfair prejudice to the applicant. The court also examined whether the inspection of the application for leave to appeal and the draft notice of appeal would cause prejudice to the applicant's right to a fair trial. The justices deliberated on the balance between the public's right to access to justice and the applicant's right to a fair trial.

After careful consideration, the court found that the publication of the evidence and the inspection of the documents in question could indeed cause unfair prejudice to the applicant. Consequently, the court granted the orders sought by Hoang. The publication of the evidence was forbidden, and the inspection of the application for leave to appeal and the draft notice of appeal in the registry was prohibited. The court's decision aimed to ensure that the applicant's right to a fair trial was protected while still maintaining a degree of transparency in the legal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Publication of evidence given by the applicant, Nhan Van Hoang, and by Detective Constable Jamieson before Miles CJ on 6 April 2000 be forbidden.

2. Inspection in the Registry of the application for leave to appeal, and the draft notice of appeal if appended thereto, be prohibited.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.

BETWEEN:	NHAN VAN HOANG APPLICANT
AND:	THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 APRIL 2000
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 25 OF 2000

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	7 APRIL 2000
PLACE:	CANBERRA